Comments on: Web Workers: Which OS Do You Use?https://www.sitepoint.com/what-os-do-you-use/
Learn CSS | HTML5 | JavaScript | Wordpress | Tutorials-Web Development | Reference | Books and MoreFri, 09 Dec 2016 15:29:00 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.4.2By: AnilGhttps://www.sitepoint.com/what-os-do-you-use/#comment-72268
Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:48:00 +0000http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=20556#comment-72268I wonder if anyone has considered the other part of the MS inertia. MS has a lot of ‘weight’ in the market with its MCSE Engineers.

I fairly recently met such an MCSE starting out on his career, with a good attitude and willingness to learn. His impression of Linux was that it’s a ‘toy’ system! He didn’t seem to have the slightest inkling of what Linux is capable of and how far it outshines and overshadows Windows capabilities!

Perhaps we underestimate how far this group of albeit unknowing and basically ignorant ‘users’ are influencing the decisions. I think there’s a lot of them.

When you think how Sun basically had to open source Solaris because all the sysadmins coming out of college were practiced on RedHat and had no idea about Solaris variations, you begin to see how important this factor is.

I work in an organisation that outsources its network support to a national company. I still have to do the Linux support because their engineers just basically can’t.

]]>By: boltronicshttps://www.sitepoint.com/what-os-do-you-use/#comment-72267
Mon, 02 Aug 2010 02:04:16 +0000http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=20556#comment-72267awasson, you make a good point about MS being the only obvious choice in the pre-Internet era and old habits dying hard, but I don’t think that is the case here… at least, I don’t think it’s the primary issue.

I think the reason GNU/Linux systems aren’t more popular is primarily because of marketing and perceived value. As Craig previously mentioned, most people get Windows preinstalled on their machines. People don’t need to ask for it, but they know they paid for it. The perception is that something you can download at no cost can’t be as good as something you already paid money for.

A lot of people don’t seem to care too much about switching if there is some incentive to do it. A lot of (/most?) Mac users came from Windows, and they did so at their own choice, and likely without major issues considering how many have successfully done it. However, to go from Windows to Apple generally means paying *more* for something perceived to be better. Switching to GNU/Linux may feel like a downgrade, since you are replacing your software you paid good money for with something which you just downloaded off the web at no cost.

Even if people had a clear choice when buying a new computer; “GNU/Linux or Windows?”, Windows OEM licenses are generally cheap enough that most people won’t mind paying a few bucks more for perceived value. Besides, lots of people are aware that buying Windows later at retail prices can cost hundreds more, further adding to that perception.

Then there is the advertising and brand recognition. You may have a Microsoft mouse, keyboard and other accessories. Most people you know run Windows, so you and your family/friends have already committed to trusting the Microsoft company/brand. GNU/Linux doesn’t have a brand as such. Canonical doesn’t make Ubuntu. They support it, they release it, compile it, etc. But the majority of software comes from third parties. There is no such thing called Canonical GNOME, for example.

GNU/Linux has a history of being perceived as a hacker’s or geek’s OS. While this has not been exclusively the case for many years, not everyone is up with the times. First impressions count.

Lastly, for those who have considered a switch (perhaps by booting a LiveCD/USB or what not, they will have found that Flash and support for various codecs tends to be quite horrible. The top three desktop issues I see are as follows:

1. Flash does not work. It simply doesn’t. I don’t care what Adobe says. I generally try not to have it installed.

The Flash issue will be fixed when it is no longer relevant. With Apple also pushing for this, I can see this happening. Perhaps 5 years is a reasonable estimate for Flash to be uncommon (or at least deliberately made to be unnecessary) on major websites.

2. DVDs won’t work out of the box. CSS libraries cannot be included due to it infringing on software patents in many countries.

The DVD issue will probably be fixed when software patents are abolished. This has to happen in time. Currently companies are enjoying monopolies in certain areas by using SP to wage war against upstarts, however when an all out patent war is started between major corporations (which it appears Apple may become the catalyst for due to recent behavior), hopefully all will see software patents for what they are and we will see a larger push to have them abolished.

3. BluRay discs won’t work (easily, if at all). You generally need to rip them to your HDD, and play the video stream back directly (bypassing the menus).

The third problem will be solved in time, and when software patents are abolished, more developers will step in to get this issue sorted. Even though my desktop has a HD-DVD/BluRay combo drive, I just end up switching on my PS3 or 360 when I need to watch one of these.

Unlike corporations, FOSS can never go away and will always continue to improve. It is inevitable that it will gain popularity. Maybe not market share, but definitely popularity.

]]>By: awassonhttps://www.sitepoint.com/what-os-do-you-use/#comment-72266
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:28:04 +0000http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=20556#comment-72266No, I would say apathy and lack of interest is more of a reason for not moving elsewhere. My guess is most visitors (members) of SitePoint have at one point or another been the family & friends tech support so this might have a familiar ring to it.

This isn’t to knock Windows because it does do a pretty good job on a huge array of hardware but on numerous occasions while checking a rogue computer I have discovered massive issues with drivers, registry errors, adware, viruses, etc…. The people who have these computers know there’s a problem but they just ignore it. This happens all the time but it’s what they’re used to and as a result they don’t want to make a change. Crazy but it seems to be the reality.

]]>By: Craig Bucklerhttps://www.sitepoint.com/what-os-do-you-use/#comment-72265
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:55:02 +0000http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=20556#comment-72265That’s part of the issue. Many would say MS’s aggressive enforcement of Windows on all PC manufacturers plays a part too. But if you accept Linux is a viable alternative which is easier to install and support, why has it’s desktop market share barely moved from 1%?

Inertia is partly to blame, but I think the real problem is that Windows is good enough … for most people, anyway. Many users buy a PC and never experience a driver problem, software incompatibility, virus, or malware attack (that they’re aware of). Why should they change? Their requirements are fairly basic and Linux won’t make them more productive.

It’s a lingering result of Microsoft’s huge earlier successes running on cheap and available hardware on the desktop and their success at getting into the school system. This goes back to the early, mid 90’s (about 1994 or so) when really the only system that did anything and looked like it would survive was Windows 3.1 or 3.11. Apple was tanking, IBM failed with OS/2 Warp and MS Windows was picking up momentum. MS Office was available, as was Works and even MS Write was a good little word processor. All the good Games ran on DOS so you’d boot up your machine and either stay in MS Dos for your gaming or boot to Windows for productivity.

Sure there were other systems around but they either required expensive hardware (Apple) or were hard to configure and lacked software titles so the bottom line was that if you were going to use a computer for business or education, you would be learning/using a PC. Now we have much better options but old habits die hard.

]]>By: Craig Bucklerhttps://www.sitepoint.com/what-os-do-you-use/#comment-72263
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:42:33 +0000http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=20556#comment-72263@boltronics
I agree with everything you’re saying. Linux is easy to install, stable, and runs existing software. So why does Windows have a 90% desktop market share? Are you suggesting only 1% of people/companies have heard of Linux?

It’s a similar story for OpenOffice.org. I use it, recommend it, and even prefer Write to Word (Excel still beats Calc, though). But do I distribute ODF files to my clients? Saving as a .doc/x works but formatting isn’t always accurate. If the client needs an editable document, I often have to use MS Office.

For most companies, Linux is a step into the unknown which has a real monetary cost that cannot be determined until you start evaluation. IBM has the resources, expertise, and inclination to do it, but the vast majority of companies do not have or need in-depth IT knowledge. Changing systems is a risk and few companies like risk … especially when they’re only running Windows-based software. Most consider Windows to be the safe option and support is a phone call away.

]]>By: boltronicshttps://www.sitepoint.com/what-os-do-you-use/#comment-72262
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:15:34 +0000http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=20556#comment-72262> So you’re happy to install Linux on a few hundred PCs for
> nothing?
Sorry Craig, but that’s just not how it works. Companies with that amount of PCS will almost certainly try to purchase identical (or as close as possible) hardware, so that a corporate image can be deployed. I’ve worked in a company that used Norton Ghost and partimage to do just that. Make a single image, test it, deploy it.

However, even if that isn’t the case, Ubuntu has a huge advantage: you don’t really need to customize the image for varying hardware… it just works. No need to hack in 3rd party drivers for different motherboards and network cards, because modern GNU/Linux distros support them all out of the box. That is a huge time saver right there, and explains why so many (non-MS) Windows rescue CDs are GNU/Linux based.

> What if it crashes under certain Linux-only conditions?
That’s why you test. And depending on the number of licenses you are trying to save and the problem encountered, it might even be more cost-effective to hire somebody to create you a wine patch, if shown to be necessary (but looking at the WINE AppDB should give you a good indication of what results to expect up front).

However, you don’t need to hire a developer to get things fixed; the WINE development community (for example) is extremely active. If you are prepared to help the developers out with regression testing (details all documented clearly on the website) and aren’t in a huge rush to migrate, you may be able to get any problems fixed yourself. Just like any open source project.

Just this morning, I noticed a commit to a FOSS program I use was performed that solves a bug I reported. Last month, developers released a fix for a VirtualBox bug I reported. If it’s a legitimate bug blocking your use of the software and the program is actively developed, you can be confident a developer will take interest in solving the problem.

> Many will think the internet’s unavailable because there’s no
> blue ‘e’!
Here, you go way too far. If these people don’t know that “Firefox Web Browser” is a web browser, they really shouldn’t be working in a field that requires them to use computers. I would question why those people were hired to do the job they are doing.

Besides, if we are talking a lot of users, you can customize the image as much as you want to meet user expectations. Hell, change the Firefox icon to the IE icon and stretch it to take up half the desktop if it will help.

> in a company which has Windows expertise
Tell me, did these people manage to transition to the Office Ribbon bar? How? It’s completely unlike anything before it. Did they need special training to figure it out?

If training was required, then the same can be justified for an OS migration. If it wasn’t, then it is reasonable to expect that it also wouldn’t be required for this change either.

I would also go one step further and question if a company truly requires Microsoft Office, when OpenOffice.org has 95%+ the functionality and compatibility. If IBM can ditch Office, I would argue the same is true for most companies.

]]>By: Craig Bucklerhttps://www.sitepoint.com/what-os-do-you-use/#comment-72261
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:07:18 +0000http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=20556#comment-72261@boltronics
“It costs nothing and is easy to try.”
So you’re happy to install Linux on a few hundred PCs for nothing? The software may be free, but evaluation, installation and configuration still costs money.

“you will still likely get Sage support if you need it”
Sage state the requirements are Windows, although they mention Parallels on the Mac (but that’s still Windows). I don’t doubt they’d support financial bugs, but what if you can’t install or run the application? What if it crashes under certain Linux-only conditions?

“They won’t argue at all”
I agree most won’t realise Linux is a viable option. But if a user requires Sage and MS Office in a company which has Windows expertise, what’s the no-brainer choice of OS?

Few companies are brave enough to step into the unknown and install Linux. That’s a shame, but it’s the way it is.

]]>By: AnilGhttps://www.sitepoint.com/what-os-do-you-use/#comment-72260
Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:46:39 +0000http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=20556#comment-72260Thanks for pursuing your point, Craig, I can see where you are coming from. Yeah, all the OSs do actually _work_, but it’s clear which ones work _better_.

I think your main point is around the ‘inertia’ factor, and as boltronics says, is largely due to lack of information and perhaps courage.

I think businesses are reluctant to switch since budget approval for licensing of MS software is normally a given and of course there are risks associated with moving onto a different platform. No matter how well you perform the move there will be costs and ‘pain’ around failures along the route.

I think it’s a lot better now than say 5 years ago, though. There are posters on this thread who are clearly making Linux / Open Office work for businesses. Those businesses will get a lower cost higher performing platform for their trouble.

I think if businesses realised the total cost of all the lost productivity from slow downs, crashes and outages when using Microsoft, and the ongoing elevated cost of maintenance, not forgetting the repeated need to improve hardware as performance needs to increase to match new versions of the OS.. they’d switch a lot quicker. And that’s all without even considering the license cost.

I commend all those posting on this thread who are doing this work and encourage you to aim your work at bigger and bigger businesses.

]]>By: boltronicshttps://www.sitepoint.com/what-os-do-you-use/#comment-72259
Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:00:32 +0000http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=20556#comment-72259> But how well does it work?… How easy is it to set up? Are there any issues?
Try and see. It costs nothing and is easy to try. Although not the recommended approach, most software can be installed in exactly the same way as Windows – with a double click of the setup.exe file.

> Will Sage support it?
You don’t need to tell them what OS you installed it onto, so you will still likely get Sage support if you need it.

> Will users require training?
Nope. WINE will create all the required shortcuts on the OS menu. File management is basically the same as a mac, which nobody seems to complain about.

> Ultimately, most businesses will argue it’s cheaper and easier to provide Windows to Sage users.
I disagree. They won’t argue at all. They won’t even know it’s an option.